How much of chess is luck?

Sort:
Cornfed
najdorf96 wrote:

Indeed To paraphrase Capablanca, "Luck always follows the better player"

 

I say: to use the term 'always' is almost...ahem...always a trap.

Hey, Magnus is the best player on the planet, yes? But some MUCH weaker players have beaten or held him to a draw in the past few years.

Usually, that is because of Magnus' ego...going all out, taking sometimes better (but not 'won') sometimes not better (but drawable) positions, taking chances because his ego tells him he is supposed to be so much better than these 'average GM's and thus win.

If you happen to be one of those average GM's on that given day, you my friend are the benefit of some luck in your individual game with Magnus. Congratulations!

 

forked_again
Mockingjayfire wrote:

Well "forked again" what u say is partly correct but partly wrong...

No chess player can play games with 100% control every time Not even MAGNUS CARLSON ,at least 1 time a player would do a blunder or a mistake or even a inaccurate move and turn the whole game upside down....It is because we are human ...There are only a few perfect brains in this world...

So at least a few times our games are based on luck...You say that if we play chess while analyzing,calculating ,and by playing correct moves you can win a game and that you do not need luck...but what happens when your opponent does the same there is NO END TO A GAME WITHOUT EVEN A SMALL MISTAKE.....

Again you are right and I am right we are just defining luck differently.  A lesser player beats a stronger player one day.  His overall skill did not become better than the stronger player, but on that day he played better, that's all.  I don't call that luck that he just raised his level of performance.  

Say there is a super hard expert ski run that I can not ski down accurately.  I go slow and I fall a lot.  Then one day I have a great performance, don't fall, and get down in half my normal time.  I don't think that's luck.  I did it myself.  There was no outside force acting as a random factor that helped me.  

LadyMisil

If a weaker skilled player defeats a stronger one, then the question becomes did the weaker player outplay the stronger player or did the stronger player play badly and lose to the weaker one?  If the weaker player simply made good moves that the stronger player could not contend with, then the weaker player totally outplayed the stronger player with skill in that particular game.  If however, the stronger player blundered for whatever reason, allowing anyone to beat him, then it was the weaker player’s lucky day.

In reality, it is usually a combination of both, to varying degrees.  Sometimes the weaker player is lucky, sometimes the weaker player had a great unbeatable game, but usually it is both.

 

 

Elroch

This question has quite a precise answer. For playing against any other person, work out the variance of your results. That quantifies the "luck" aspect (i.e. the component of variations of results that is not due to the standard of the two players).

So it's quite a lot in general (because there are a lot of decisive games, even between two equally matched players).

The amount of randomness (variance) in the results is more when the two players are of a similar standard (when the expected result is 0.5, but a lot of games are 1-0 or 0-1). It is also substantially more for weaker players than for stronger players, for the sole reason that stronger players draw more. (eg if two players have equal ratings and score 25% wins each and 50% draws, the expected score is 0.5 and the variance is 0.125. If the two players score 50% wins each, the variance is 0.25. This difference quantifies the greater random element in the results of the latter two players. Players may also decrease or increase the amount of luck by playing quiet, safe lines or wild, tactical ones, even if this has no effect on their expected (in the statistical sense) result.

LadyMisil
Elroch wrote:
... It is also substantially more for weaker players than for stronger players, for the sole reason that stronger players draw more. (eg if two players have equal ratings and score 25% wins each and 50% draws, the expected score is 0.5 and the variance is 0.125. If the two players score 50% wins each, the variance is 0.25. This difference quantifies the greater random element in the results of the latter two players. Players may also decrease or increase the amount of luck by playing quiet, safe lines or wild, tactical ones, even if this has no effect on their expected (in the statistical sense) result.

This is so true!  Top players bring more skill to their game than weak players do.  So luck plays a bigger part in the games of weaker players.  This is noted because statistically, top grandmaster games have more legitimate draw results than two novice players.  Novices rarely have drawn games.  Thank you for providing statistical proof, Elroch.  😊

LadyMisil

In answer to the above question, how much chess is luck?

Factors:

1. Level of the players.  Higher skilled means less luck.

2. Choice of openings.  Complicated, experimental openings have more chance of luck involved than a safe draw line.

3. Taking risks in the middlegame.  A positional Tal sacrifice complicates the position which increases a win or lose situation.  Complicated positions increases the chances of a blunder.

4.  Endgames are more decided by skill than luck, because forced continuations can be foreseen much farther than middlegame combinations.  Some endgames are declared won or drawn 20-30 moves or longer down the line.

5.  “Endgame” players like Petrosian and Capablanca are more likely to draw than combinative players like Tal and Alekhine.  They play safer lines relying on their endgame skill more than the opponent getting lost in a maze of complications or on their ability to outplay their opponents tactically.  For these players, luck is less of a factor than the exciting “win or lose” players.

Conclusion:  The amount of luck in a chess game is greatly determined by the players themselves - their skill levels and their choice of “gambling” or not.

LadyMisil

Yes, I💖tuna, luck is for nothing if you are not able to take advantage of it.  Being prepared, able, and capable are necessary requisites for turning your luck into a win.

Almost any grandmaster can drop a piece against a novice and win.  They can even give queen odds.  The novice needs to make good moves in order to make good their material advantage, even though the grandmaster has a “lost” position.

DiogenesDue

Wikipedia's example of a game without luck (i.e. random factors):  Chess.

Those of you who decide to keep going with the soft sci-fi/pseudo-science definition of luck are welcome to your conversation, but it's all twaddle.  You must be quite happy when your favorite NASCAR driver gets lucky and wins a race when the lead car spins out in the final turn...good fortune abounds!  It has nothing to do with pressuring a racer into making a mistake...

Mistake = breakdown of application of skill/knowledge

Opposite of skill = lack of skill (not luck)

You can't argue that luck and skill are on the same spectrum on the one hand, then talk about "taking advantage" of luck with superior skill when it presents itself.  One poster has said in two different posts that luck is the opposite of skill, then said that skillful players can also be lucky and have to jump on the opportunity.  It's one or the other, make your choice.  Are they opposites on the same spectrum, or two completely different things?  Hint: the latter.

The Tal argument is ridiculous.  Pressuring your opponents into calculation errors by making board positions more complex is a gamble, yes...a gamble based on the premise that Tal's calculating skills OTB are better than his opponents.  This represents an application of skills:  having better calculation skills,, and knowing how to drive games into waters where that particular advantage is most useful.  Tal did not gamble and then "get lucky" against better players.  He beat them, flat out. 

If a skater who lands triple axles 60% of the time decides to do 9 triples in their routine because their nearest competitor lands triples only 50% of the time, that is an application of skill.  If they end up losing because they landed 50% that day and their opponents in the meet landed 55% on average, that is also all about skill and lack of same, not luck. 

- Having an "off day" is not luck.

- Making bad decisions is not luck.

- Having an opponent play above their normal level is not luck.  

- Getting your pair of kings beaten by pocket aces with two all-ins pre-flop on the first hand of the WSOP...that is luck.

The only luck in chess is color selection.

Chess definition:  the game itself, between two players, with base rules...not external tourney rules, not the weather outside, not the burrito you ate this morning...

Luck definition:  "Luck in games involving chance is defined as the change in a player's equity after a random event such as a die roll or card draw."

ExcellentBlunderer24

"Chess is 99% skill, 1% luck"-Someone I forgot his name

najdorf96

+cornfed Indeed. The "better" player in any game is not, by it's definition the one with the Highest, Lowest, or average rating-it's the player that minimized errors, followed through with the clearest path to victory. As seen in even the highest levels, the one with the "Better" form will win, or pullout a draw from a bad position. Hence, "luck always follow the Better player". Cool.

najdorf96

+LadyMisil English is my first language. But I guess it's your prerogative to be passive aggressive when typing out such a question. It's cool.

najdorf96

+btickler nice.

The2DarkKnights

there is almost few luck in chess its all about skill

najdorf96

+morphysrevenge Indeed. With respect to the OP, I thought the same way as you did about cyboo's simple comment. Richard went on to say "we" (the common player folk) have a mindset that generally denies this. Which, yeah it provoked some interest for me to see where he was going with this. But, as I've seen so far..."we" generally don't see luck as any factor in our games. "We" see it as a game of skill, artistic, sport, scientific not a game of chance. Of "Luck".

WSama

Well, there's luck in everything. In fact, you've seen it yourself, all of you. Weaker players guessing master moves and winning the game. You think to yourself "just lucky", haven't you? Well, it's probable that the opponent is thinking the very same thing.

WSama

Therefore luck persists, even in the very fact that we often think it to be so.

WSama

So, what? If we deny its existence then does that mean it ceases to be? Ha! Interesting. Some would say yes, that luck is simply a manifestation of the will of either yourself or another, so to deny it is to counter it to some degree. So...

WSama

What is luck, really. The answer might shatter our conception of its existence and efficacy.

WSama

After all, if it's just the manifestation of the will, then isn't it on the same level as a calculated logical decision, but simply applied in a different manner.

LadyMisil
btickler wrote:

 You can't argue that luck and skill are on the same spectrum on the one hand, then talk about "taking advantage" of luck with superior skill when it presents itself.  One poster has said in two different posts that luck is the opposite of skill, then said that skillful players can also be lucky and have to jump on the opportunity.  It's one or the other, make your choice.  Are they opposites on the same spectrum, or two completely different things?  Hint: the latter.

You say that I can’t.  Well, I just did.  The problem is you don’t understand what I said and so you created a model that isn’t true.

Winning at anything is a combination of skill and luck, not opposites like you say.  Certainly not “It’s one or the other, make your choice.”

Your fallacies begin with a black and white image of reality and cannot go further to comprehend the true nature of reality.  Things are usually not black or white, yes or no, truth or lie, etc. but a mixture of both.

You can give yourself some credit for winning any particular game, you can also give yourself most of the credit, but can you take all the credit?  Only if you are practicing the self delusion that you have total control over life, destiny, and everything around you.

In a game of chess, you have more control of the situation than you probably do in real life, but absolute total control?  Dream on.

But I guess this is the dividing line between the mature people who realize that they are not the be all and end all of everything in life and the immature kids who have not grown up yet to realize that absolute power and control is not theirs.